Second Line PARP Maintenance May Increase Overall Survival vs Active Surveillance in Ovarian Cancer

Patients with recurrent ovarian cancer experienced a longer overall survival and time to next treatment when receiving second-line PARP maintenance compared with active surveillance.

Treatment with a second-line PARP maintenance therapy in the second line resulted in a longer overall survival (OS) and time to next treatment compared with active surveillance, according to a poster presentation at The Society of Gynecologic Oncology Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

The median OS in the overall population who received PARP inhibitors was 26.4 months (95% CI, 21.3-34.4) compared with 16.7 months (95% CI, 15.1-19.6) in the active surveillance group (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56-0.76). In the population with BRCA mutations, investigators reported a median OS of of 47.1 months (95% CI, 26.4-47.1) vs 43.8 months (95% CI, 22.3–not reached) in the PARP inhibitor and active surveillance groups, respectively. In the BRCA wild-type population, the median OS was 23.2 months (95% CI, 20.4-34.4) vs 16.7 months (95% CI, 15.1-19.6) in both respective groups.

A total of 936 patients enrolled on the trial, 198 of whom received PARP inhibitors and 747 underwent active surveillance. The median overall age was 68.0 years, and the majority of patients were White (72%) and receiving treatment at community practices (86%). Most patients had BRCA wild-type disease (76%), and others had BRCA mutations (11%). In terms of histology, 78% of patients had serous disease; 14% had disease that was epithelial, not otherwise specified, or unknown; and 8% had clear cell, endometrioid, mucinous, or transitional cell cancer.

Exclusion criteria included those with an incomplete medical history, borderline histology, or treatment with a non-PARP inhibitor therapy within 120 days of the index date, as well as those who received PARP inhibitor monotherapy as a first- or second-line treatment. Inclusion criteria included those receiving PARP inhibitor therapy within 120 days after index or would be relegated to the active surveillance group if not.

The median follow-up was 14.2 months for the PARP inhibitor group compared with 6.7 months in the active surveillance group.

After debulking surgery for initial diagnosis, 50% of patients receiving PARP inhibitors had no visible residual disease compared with 34% of those receiving active surveillance. Similar findings were reported among patients with a BRCA mutation (21% vs 8%) and those with an ECOG performance status of 0 to 1 (79% vs 69%) who received PARP maintenance and active surveillance, respectively. Of those who were treated with PARP inhibitors, 33% received single-agent niraparib (Zejula), 34% received single-agent olaparib (Lynparza), 16% received single-agent rucaparib (Rubraca), and 16% received other regimens such as bevacizumab (Avastin) plus a PARP inhibitor or PARP inhibitor polytherapy.

The median time to next treatment in the overall population was 6.4 months (95% CI, 5.6-7.1) in the PARP inhibitor group and 3.3 months (95% CI, 2.7-4.0) in the active surveillance group (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.68-0.79). Those with a BRCA mutation had a median time to next treatment of 13.2 months (95% CI, 10.3-22.1) vs 7.1 months (95% CI, 5.2-9.9) in the PARP inhibitor and active surveillance groups, respectively. Those who were BRCA wild-type had a median time to next treatment of 5.8 months (95% CI, 4.8-6.7) vs 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.3-3.5) in both respective groups.


Matulonis U, Mirza M, Malinowska I, et al. Real-world clinical outcomes with poly (adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitors as second-line maintenance therapy in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer in the United States. Presented at The Society of Gynecologic Oncology Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer; March 18-20, 2022; Phoenix, AZ. Poster 353.

Related Videos
The risk of radionuclide exposure to the public reflects one reason urologists need to collaborate with radiation oncologists when administering radiopharmaceuticals to patients with prostate cancer.
Switching out beta emitters for alpha emitters, including radium-223, is one way to improve radiopharmaceutical treatment of prostate cancer, according to an expert from Weill Cornell Medicine.
Data demonstrate the feasibility of automated glomerular filtration rate prediction to decide between partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy in kidney cancer, according to an expert from the Cleveland Clinic.
Early phase trials investigating cellular therapies, bispecific antibodies, and antibody-drug conjugates for refractory kidney cancer may uncover strategies to overcome resistance mechanisms.
Increasing cancer antigen presentation as well as working with tumor cells in and delivering novel cells to the microenvironment may help in overcoming mechanisms of immune checkpoint inhibitor resistance in refractory renal cell carcinoma.
Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab appears to be the best option for patients with refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma who are progressing on immunotherapy combinations or are lenvatinib naïve.
Ipilimumab monotherapy does not appear effective in driving complete responses in refractory renal cell carcinoma despite yielding some progression-free survival intervals, according to an expert from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.
An expert from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center discusses several phase 3 clinical trials supporting the use of various single-agent and combination immunotherapy regimens for advanced kidney cancer.
Shilpa Gupta, MD, shares the current standard of care for muscle-invasive bladder cancer and highlights other options that may be suitable for some patients.
An expert from Stanford Medicine that the goal behind a study characterizing circulating tumor DNA and its predictive value is to eventually replace blood marrow exams with a blood draw for those with multiple myeloma.